Reservoir Engineering - General - Estimation of Ultimate Recovery from Solution Gas-Drive Reservoirs

In the past few years several articles and papers presenting results of solution gas-drive depletion calculations have appeared in the lit-erature. Such calculations are of interest to the oil industry, for investment decisions must often be made before much is known about a reservoir. At other times, an estimate of the possible benefits to be realized from alternate production methods is desirable, and theoretical depletion calculations can serve as a floor or reference level from which to work. In any case, an estimate of ultimate oil recovery based upon engineering data is commonly required. An engineer confronted with the problem of obtaining, for a specific reservoir system, an estimate of ultimate oil recovery by solution gas-drive depletion usually will be forced to perform the calculations himself. This is despite the quantity of data in the literature. Rarely will either experience or the literature provide results from a reservoir system similar in all important respects to the one under consideration, and calculated results are not so plentiful that satisfactory interpolation procedures can be devised. Performing the calculations, however, is a tedious, time-consuming task unless an electronic computer is available, and, in practice, time and manpower are not always available for this purpose. A quick, simple, consistent method was needed for reducing the uncer- tainty in estimated oil recovery from solution gas-drive reservoirs when only minimum information about the reservoir system is available. PROCEDURE Method of Calculation The usual requisite assumptions were made so that the material balance equation could be used to calculate data for the charts. The following assumptions were made: (1) the reservoir is homogeneous and isotropic; (2) oil recovery is due entirely to solution gas drive and neither a gas cap nor a water drive nor gravity drainage is present; (3) the initial reservoir pressure is the bubble-point pressure of the reservoir fluid; (4) initial total liquid saturation is 100 per cent of pore space; (5) interstitial water saturation remains at the initial value as the reservoir pressure declines from the bubble-point pressure to atmospheric pressure; (6) equilibrium gas saturation is 5 per cent of pore space; and (7) oil and gas saturations are uniformly distributed throughout the reservoir at all times. There are no saturation gradients due to a wellbore, nor is the geometry of the reservoir system considered. The material balance equation was written in the form of a differential equation' which was integrated to determine the change in oil saturation for an assigned pressure drop. Formal integration was not possible, so recourse was made to the Runge-Kutta method' of numerical integration. All computations were performed on IBM equipment. Numerical integration yielded the change in oil saturation within the reservoir as the pressure. declined from the bubble-point pressure to atmospheric pressure. The initial oil saturation minus the change in oil saturation yielded the oil saturation at atmospheric pressure. The oil originally in place was obtained by dividing the initial oil saturation by the initial formation volume factor (differential liberation) while the oil in place at atmospheric pressure was obtained by dividing the final oil saturation by the formation volume factor at atmospheric pressure. U1timate oil recovery, expressed as a percentage of the initial oil in place, was obtained by dividing the difference between the oil initially in place and the oil in place at atmospheric pressure by the oil initially in place and multiplying by 100. PVT Data Charts were based upon 135 solutions to the material balance equation. PVT properties of the reservoir fluids were variables in this equation and had to be known as functions of pressure. The required PVT data might have been obtained from either actual reservoir fluid systems or correlated data. However, correlated PVT data were developed and employed in the calculations for the following reasons: (1) it is doubtful that 135 sets of PVT data could have been obtained for the values of variables investigated in this study, and (2) results of recovery calculations from randomly obtained PVT data could not be correlated as well as rssults from selected PVT data. The PVT data used to develop the